Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
large seed companies outside of the Big 6 may be increasing biotechnology investments.
However, Syngenta has apparently decreased its spending on crop biotechnology while
increasing its overall seed research in recent years, if the reported research expenditure
devoted to “business development” in its annual reports can be assumed to be
biotechnology research. This has been our working assumption for Syngenta. Other
companies do not make this distinction in reporting their R&D expenditures.
21
As mentioned in footnote 17, some privately collected data are available for purchase from
such companies as GfK Kynetec. These data focus particularly on large markets such as the
United States, on commercial seed sales as reported by farmers, and on major crops such as
corn, soybeans, and cotton for which many varieties include GM traits. Magnier et al
(2010), for example, use data purchased from GfK Kynetec to develop and analyze a fairly
complete list of corn hybrids sold in the United States between 1997 and 2009. These data
are also the basis for Shi et al.'s (2009; 2010a; and 2010b) analysis of biotech trait pricing
for U.S. corn, soybeans, and cotton.
22
Patent counts have often been used as an indicator of innovative activity. Huffman and
Evenson (2006) use U.S. data on patents issued to private inventors in four agricultural
areas as a proxy for private agricultural R&D capital. Brennan et al. (2005) present annual
concentration ratios for both agricultural biotechnology patents and agricultural
biotechnology field trials in the United States as possible indicators of competitiveness in
markets for agricultural biotechnology. Nonetheless, patent data used in this way suffer
from some limitations: the propensity to use patents or other forms of intellectual property
protection might vary over time, by crop, and over jurisdiction (e.g., the application of
utility patents to crop cultivars has been primarily a U.S. phenomenon). The propensity to
patent also varies depending on the technology. Research tools, traits for genetic
engineering, or GM cultivars, for example, might be more likely to be patented than
nonbiotechnology research outputs. Also, intellectual property strategies may vary among
companies.
23
Some of the indicators when traced across time show defi nite patterns. For example,
concentration in fi eld trial permits has been consistently high (CR 4s of 60 to 100 percent)
(Fernandez-Cornejo, 2004). Concentration ratios (CR 10) for broadly defi ned agricultural
biotechnology patents fell over the 1990s if mergers and acquisitions are not considered. If
mergers and acquisitions are accounted for, the CR 10 began to rise after 1995 (King and
Heisey, 2003).
24
A GM “event” is an instance where a specifi c gene has been introduced into a particular crop.
Subsequent introduction of the same gene into another variety of the same crop is not
considered to be a separate event.
25
If GM event approvals are counted only once (eliminating double counting of the same GM
seed approved for release in more than one country), Monsanto's share of total global
approvals falls from 49 to 38 percent, since that Monsanto has been particularly active in
obtaining multiple approvals for the same GM events. The two most widely approved GM
events, GTS 40-3-2 (glyphosate-tolerant or “Roundup Ready” soybeans) and MON 810 (Bt
corn expressing the Cry1Ab protein) both belong to Monsanto.
26
In addition, event approvals are sometimes issued jointly to more than one company.
27
See www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/node/946/print.
28
A number of different Bt genes are available, and they are now aimed at the control of different
pests (e.g., the European corn borer and rootworm), contributing to the complexity of the
situation with respect to insect resistance.
